2016 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33313673)
1. Do we need different machine learning algorithms for QSAR modeling? A comprehensive assessment of 16 machine learning algorithms on 14 QSAR data sets.
Wu Z; Zhu M; Kang Y; Leung EL; Lei T; Shen C; Jiang D; Wang Z; Cao D; Hou T
Brief Bioinform; 2021 Jul; 22(4):. PubMed ID: 33313673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparing supervised and semi-supervised Machine Learning Models on Diagnosing Breast Cancer.
Al-Azzam N; Shatnawi I
Ann Med Surg (Lond); 2021 Feb; 62():53-64. PubMed ID: 33489117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. ADMET Evaluation in Drug Discovery. 18. Reliable Prediction of Chemical-Induced Urinary Tract Toxicity by Boosting Machine Learning Approaches.
Lei T; Sun H; Kang Y; Zhu F; Liu H; Zhou W; Wang Z; Li D; Li Y; Hou T
Mol Pharm; 2017 Nov; 14(11):3935-3953. PubMed ID: 29037046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Artificial intelligence in clinical care amidst COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.
Adamidi ES; Mitsis K; Nikita KS
Comput Struct Biotechnol J; 2021; 19():2833-2850. PubMed ID: 34025952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Optimizing neural networks for medical data sets: A case study on neonatal apnea prediction.
Shirwaikar RD; Acharya U D; Makkithaya K; M S; Srivastava S; Lewis U LES
Artif Intell Med; 2019 Jul; 98():59-76. PubMed ID: 31521253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Artificial intelligence to predict outcomes of head and neck radiotherapy.
Bang C; Bernard G; Le WT; Lalonde A; Kadoury S; Bahig H
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol; 2023 Mar; 39():100590. PubMed ID: 36935854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of QSAR Equations for Virtual Screening.
Spiegel J; Senderowitz H
Int J Mol Sci; 2020 Oct; 21(21):. PubMed ID: 33105703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Improved Multiclassification of Schizophrenia Based on Xgboost and Information Fusion for Small Datasets.
Zhu W; Shen S; Zhang Z
Comput Math Methods Med; 2022; 2022():1581958. PubMed ID: 35903435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. On the use of machine learning algorithms in forensic anthropology.
Nikita E; Nikitas P
Leg Med (Tokyo); 2020 Nov; 47():101771. PubMed ID: 32795933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of artificial intelligence algorithms and their ranking for the prediction of genetic merit in sheep.
Hamadani A; Ganai NA; Mudasir S; Shanaz S; Alam S; Hussain I
Sci Rep; 2022 Nov; 12(1):18726. PubMed ID: 36333409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparative evaluation of the generalised predictive ability of eight machine learning algorithms across ten clinical metabolomics data sets for binary classification.
Mendez KM; Reinke SN; Broadhurst DI
Metabolomics; 2019 Nov; 15(12):150. PubMed ID: 31728648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Prediction of Individual Gas Yields of Supercritical Water Gasification of Lignocellulosic Biomass by Machine Learning Models.
Khandelwal K; Dalai AK
Molecules; 2024 May; 29(10):. PubMed ID: 38792198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Chemometrics-assisted simultaneous voltammetric determination of ascorbic acid, uric acid, dopamine and nitrite: application of non-bilinear voltammetric data for exploiting first-order advantage.
Gholivand MB; Jalalvand AR; Goicoechea HC; Skov T
Talanta; 2014 Feb; 119():553-63. PubMed ID: 24401455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A Model for Predicting Cervical Cancer Using Machine Learning Algorithms.
Al Mudawi N; Alazeb A
Sensors (Basel); 2022 May; 22(11):. PubMed ID: 35684753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Artificial intelligence algorithm comparison and ranking for weight prediction in sheep.
Hamadani A; Ganai NA
Sci Rep; 2023 Aug; 13(1):13242. PubMed ID: 37582936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prediction of bioactivities of microsomal prostaglandin E
Tian Y; Yang Z; Wang H; Yan A
Chem Biol Drug Des; 2023 Jun; 101(6):1307-1321. PubMed ID: 36752697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparative analysis of feature selection models for spatial analysis of floods using hybrid metaheuristic and machine learning models.
Sarwar J; Khan SA; Azmat M; Khan F
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2024 May; 31(23):33495-33514. PubMed ID: 38684613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Predictive modeling of blood pressure during hemodialysis: a comparison of linear model, random forest, support vector regression, XGBoost, LASSO regression and ensemble method.
Huang JC; Tsai YC; Wu PY; Lien YH; Chien CY; Kuo CF; Hung JF; Chen SC; Kuo CH
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2020 Oct; 195():105536. PubMed ID: 32485511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. ADMET Evaluation in Drug Discovery. Part 17: Development of Quantitative and Qualitative Prediction Models for Chemical-Induced Respiratory Toxicity.
Lei T; Chen F; Liu H; Sun H; Kang Y; Li D; Li Y; Hou T
Mol Pharm; 2017 Jul; 14(7):2407-2421. PubMed ID: 28595388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparing the Influence of Simulated Experimental Errors on 12 Machine Learning Algorithms in Bioactivity Modeling Using 12 Diverse Data Sets.
Cortes-Ciriano I; Bender A; Malliavin TE
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jul; 55(7):1413-25. PubMed ID: 26038978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
